MANILA — The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the decision of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) that the trademark used by Philippine lifestyle and sporting goods store “Olympic Village” is “confusingly similar” to the “Olympic” trademark of the International Olympics Committee (IOC). 

In the decision of the CA 4th Division promulgated on April 30, 2024, the petition of Olympic Village Enterprises, Inc. president and Chief Executive Offficer Juanito Gervasio against the IOC was denied. 

The CA noted, among others, that the Philippines and Switzerland, where the IOC is based, are signatories to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. 

The CA rejected the contention of Gervasio that the “Olympic Village” mark is conceptually different from the “Olympic” mark of the IOC, noting that the term “Olympic Village” refers to the accommodation center of athletes participating in the Olympic Games. 

While Gervasio’s company name was registered in 1994 before the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTT), the CA stressed that the Philippines has been a participant in the Olympic Games since 1924 and Gervasio cannot be ignorant on the creation and prior use of the “Olympic” mark. 

“Since the respondent’s 'Olympic' mark is a well-known mark, it stands to reason that it is eligible for protection from dilution,” the CA said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Jennifer Joy Ong. 

The question on who owns the “Olympic Village” mark stemmed from the opposition by the IOC in 2011 to the use of the terms by Gervacio’s company.

READ: Athletes on guard, but still business as usual in Olympic Village 

The adjudication officer of the IPOPHL initially dismissed the opposition of the IOC on the basis that the subject marks were not confusingly similar. 

The IOC appealed the decision before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPOPHL but the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. 

But when the matter reached the IPOPHL Office of Director General Rowel Barba, the decision of the Bureau of Legal Affairs was reversed. 

Barba opined that the “Olympic” mark of the IOC is an internationally well-known and registered mark that is entitled to be protected. 

The decision of Barba then prompted Gervasio to file a petition before the CA. 

“After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the ODG-IPOPHL,” the CA said.